ARMY 2020: Britain Out of Germany (and more)
- Thread starter exspy
- Start date
I am not trying to stir the pot, but I do recall at the time that there was talk, including I believe from a very senior officer - it might even have been Admiral Falls who was the CDS - that there was a deal in the works to purchase a number of F14s from Iran, but something, perhaps the revolution and overthrow of the Shah, put an end to that. Again, this all took place many, many years ago and I can not swear to any of the details other than that negotiations were underway.
Time for :cheers:
Time for :cheers:
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
I was around, somewhere, when "Daddy" falls was CDS - but not anywhere near procurement. I was, for some time, back then, on the old Army Combat Development staff (Col, later LGen, Jim Fox, prop) with such luminaries as Terry Liston (R22R) and Phil Roy (PPCLI). Then I went back to do some (reasonably) honest soldiering, faaaaaar away from NDHQ.
I'm already :cheers: ;D
I'm already :cheers: ;D
Retired AF Guy
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 925
- Points
- 1,160
Old Sweat said:
The story I heard was that Canada was planning on buying them from the Iranians, then PM Joe Clark announced that the Canadian Embassy would be moved to Jerusalem and that peeved off the Iranians who scuttled the deal. Or something like that.
Any way, back to regular programming.
If the Brits do pull all their forces out of Germany, How far behind will be the Americans?
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,781
- Points
- 1,160
Infanteer said:
Good paper. Very informative without being overly argumentative. I thought at the beginning it was going to be an axe grinding about how many cap badges they would be loosing but came around to some very workable solutions.
Re the reserves there is a very significant statement there that applies equally here:
"The Commissioned concluded the availability and quality of the Reserves has to be
guaranteed if they are to become an integrated part of the Whole Force Structure. Such a
guarantee, the Commission said, will require “a significant change in mind-set and a change
in the nature of the bargain between the Government, the country and its Reserves.”"
By "Government" i expect they also include the Ministry and the Regular Force leadership.
Note that they are not doubling the size of the reserve which presently hovers around 30,000 but doubling the number of "trained" reservists which are currently estimated at 14-15,000.
They've got a rough row to hoe but in my mind are on a viable path to reducing costs while maximizing the use of their resources.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,930
- Points
- 1,160
Well if the Chally 2 are sold for pennies on the dollar, buy them, ship them to Nevada and store them there. A few governments later and start selling them back to them at a profit. BAOR= British Army Off the Rhine. What of Suffield?
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
My guess is we will be inherited Suffield soon - if they can't afford Suffield, they probably can't afford to clean it up.
I hope that's the case, as it opens up one of the best training areas in Canada during the prime CT season. Good destination for CMTC....
I hope that's the case, as it opens up one of the best training areas in Canada during the prime CT season. Good destination for CMTC....
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
So what about the British War Debt? Has Germany paid that off? Part of the British staying in Germany was "You still owe us."
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
One needs to go back to this document, The Strategic Defence and Security Review, Oct 10, and, especially, the "context" discussion on pps 15-20 and, for the Army, pps 24 and 25.
Note the 7 tasks, six of which could be written by Canadians for the CF:
• defending the UK and its Overseas Territories (applicable to Canada)
• providing strategic intelligence (applicable to Canada)
• providing nuclear deterrence
• supporting civil emergency organisations in times of crisis (applicable to Canada)
• defending our interests by projecting power strategically and through expeditionary interventions (applicable to Canada)
• providing a defence contribution to UK inluence (applicable to Canada)
• providing security for stabilisation. (applicable to Canada)
One can, and I would, argue that they have situated the appreciation around their current financial predicament but, perhaps, that is the most rational way to make defence decisions.
Note, also, that the Brits have focused on a 5:1 ratio for "force generation" to "force employment." As a general rule they will have one brigade ready to go, or engaged and four more to relieve it and to sustain their operations.This has been discussed elsewhere here, in Army.ca, and I think that, yet again, the Brits are being realistic in their assumptions.
Note the 7 tasks, six of which could be written by Canadians for the CF:
• defending the UK and its Overseas Territories (applicable to Canada)
• providing strategic intelligence (applicable to Canada)
• providing nuclear deterrence
• supporting civil emergency organisations in times of crisis (applicable to Canada)
• defending our interests by projecting power strategically and through expeditionary interventions (applicable to Canada)
• providing a defence contribution to UK inluence (applicable to Canada)
• providing security for stabilisation. (applicable to Canada)
One can, and I would, argue that they have situated the appreciation around their current financial predicament but, perhaps, that is the most rational way to make defence decisions.
Note, also, that the Brits have focused on a 5:1 ratio for "force generation" to "force employment." As a general rule they will have one brigade ready to go, or engaged and four more to relieve it and to sustain their operations.This has been discussed elsewhere here, in Army.ca, and I think that, yet again, the Brits are being realistic in their assumptions.
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
In an effort to better understand how these changes fit into the evolution of the Regimental System, I just read Where Did That Regiment Go? by Gerry Murphy; all in all, a solid reference book - the narrative has a few nuggets with regards to dates and times, but the real value is the charts showing the evolution of Regimental identities for the Infantry and Cavalry corps.
For my own good, I wrote out some notes that I copied here that can be considered the Regimental System 101:
1. The Regimental system as we understand it has its origins in the beginning of the English/British Army in the late 1600s; this is where roots of the more senior regiments lie. However, the formal birth of the British (and thus by extension, Canadian) Regimental system was in the Royal Warrants of 1743, 1747 and 1751 which formalized the system of colours, standardized uniforms and numbered Regiments organized on seniority;
2. The "Growth Period" of the regimental system was from the Restoration period in the late 1600s to the post Napoleonic period and saw the growth of the Line Infantry Regiments of Foot to 100 Regiments (1-99th of Foot and the Rifle Brigade). Note that this did not include the three Regiments of Guards (Grenadier, Coldstream, and Scots). This period was filled with fits and starts (some regiments were stood up, disbanded, stood up again, etc) with the primary growth spurts occurring during the 7 Years War and the Napoleonic Wars. A final growth period occurred in 1862 when the East India Company regiments were absorbed.
3. By the middle of Victorian Britain, the pre-Cardwell/Childers British Infantry system consisted of the Guards regiments and 141 Battalions belonging to to 110 Infantry Regiments of Foot; the 1st-25th each had 2 Battalions, while the 26th-109th had 1 each except the 60th (4) and the 79th (1). The Rifle Brigade had 4 battalions. Cardwell/Childers in 1881 - which can be considered the "first shock" to the 250 year old system - moved the focus from "numbered" identity" to a "named" identity. As well, all battalions above the 25th were paired (except for the 60th, 79th and Rifle Bde). Cardwell/Childers meant the Regimental System moved from 110 Line Regiments to 69 plus the 3 Regiments of Guards (this was purely an organizational change - the number of battalions remained constant).
4. There were obviously big expansions and contractions through the World Wars, but the Regimental System remained largely untouched (Regiments just grew in battalions - the Northumberland Fusiliers had 51 battalions during the First World War). By the end of the Second World War, all the excess Battalions of most regiments were disbanded (along with almost all Irish Regiments), leaving 64 single battalion Regiments of the Line, the five Guards Regiments of 8 battalions, the four Gurkha Regiments of 8 battalions and the Parachute Regiment of 3 battalions for an Infantry Corps of 74 Regiments of 83 battalions. The "Regimental Army" was still very similar to that of the Cardwell/Childers Army. With the British Empire dying a slow death after the Second World War, the Regimental System went through 4 additional periods of "shock":
4.a. The second shock was during the post India/Suez phase from 1957-1962. By the end of it, 16 mergers had occurred dropping the number of line Regiments to 49. The Guards, Gurkhas and Paras remained the same for an Infantry Corps of 59 Regiments of 68 battalions.
4.b. The third shock was during the shift from Empire to NATO from 1962-1970. The big change here was the move towards "Big Regiments"; the Line Regiments dropped only 10 battalions but, through mergers, saw the number of Regiments drop to 28. With 3 Gurkha battalions also folded up, the Infantry Corps consisted of 38 Regiments of 55 battalions.
4.c. The fourth shock was the post Cold War "Options for Change" from 1991-1994. Due to mergers and amalgamations, the Line Regiments dropped to 25 Regiments of 30 battalions. Three Regiments of Gurkhas disappeared and a single Gurkha Regiment of 2 battalions remained. The Guards Regiments were untouched, but 3 battalions were axed for an Infantry Corps of 32 Regiments of 40 Battalions.
4.d. The fifth shock stemmed from the 2004 White Paper. This made another significant "Big Regiments" move and by 2007, the Line Regiments only lost 3 battalions but had, through mergers, dropped to 10 Regiments. The Guards, Gurkhas and Paras were left alone (although a Para bn was cut to the SOF) for an Infantry Corps of 17 Regiments of 37 battalions.
So, to sum up, the Regimental System in Britain grew with the growth of the Empire to 110 Regiments (plus Guards). The first shock of Cardwell/Childers was significant, but it created the Regimental System we are most familiar with (i.e. it created the "Royal Buckshot Fusiliers"). The third and fifth shocks were also significant as they pushed for big, multi-battalion regiments.
This Army 2020 plan represents a sixth shock, or, more likely, the final part to the fifth shock started in 2004, but it seems to be quite small to the Regimental System. It will see the loss of 5 battalions, but no actual Regiments. However, it will leave a couple single battalion regiments which, historically, have been the target for further amalgamation. At this point, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the Royal Welsh Regiment may be living on borrowed time (along with some of the 2 battalion Regiments).
The so what of this? The Guards Regiments are protected, with the Grenadier, Coldstream and Scots Guards having 300+ years of unbroken, unmerged service (and the Welsh and Irish Guards having 100+ years). These will likely be the last Regiments to go.
As well, the Regimental System has never, since 1881, been a stable and monolithic institution - it has been in a constant state of flux. Even before 1881 it was constantly changing (although constantly growing instead of constantly shrinking). Any claims for "centuries old Regiments" is technically incorrect - the last 2 "pure" Regiments with single, non-amalgamated lineages were folded up in 2007. Today, the current British Regiments hold the lineage of numerous numbered Regiments from the hey-day of the Empire; the 5 battalions of the The Rifles have 21 antecedent Regiments, with the 1st Battalion The Rifles having lineage to 9 Regiments (the 11th, 28th, 39th, 49th, 54th, 61st, 62nd, 66th, and 99th Regiments of Foot). Historic regiments that have been folded up in the past were actually not that old - the Royal Green Jackets existed from 1958 to 2007.
Finally, the Regimental System through "Growth" (200 years) and "Shocks" (150 years) has evolved to the changing requirements of Army. There is a lot of gnashing of teeth as silverware is transferred from one mess to another, but the Army goes on, new traditions are made and new battle honours won, and the world carries on. We should never let Regimental mafias drive organizational agendas as their claims to operational relevance or the health of the Army are empty and not historically supported.
The book also covers the cavalry, which although a little more convoluted due to naming conventions (Dragoons, Hussars, Guards, Lancers, etc) has the same themes. Of note, the cavalry have attempted to keep their numbered regimental affiliation until the current day; with the merging of the 9th/12th Royal Lancers with the Queen's Royal Lancers, the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards will be the last Regiment in the British Army to hold its original numbered designation.
Canada's system, with its own unique quirks and features, would be useful.
For my own good, I wrote out some notes that I copied here that can be considered the Regimental System 101:
1. The Regimental system as we understand it has its origins in the beginning of the English/British Army in the late 1600s; this is where roots of the more senior regiments lie. However, the formal birth of the British (and thus by extension, Canadian) Regimental system was in the Royal Warrants of 1743, 1747 and 1751 which formalized the system of colours, standardized uniforms and numbered Regiments organized on seniority;
2. The "Growth Period" of the regimental system was from the Restoration period in the late 1600s to the post Napoleonic period and saw the growth of the Line Infantry Regiments of Foot to 100 Regiments (1-99th of Foot and the Rifle Brigade). Note that this did not include the three Regiments of Guards (Grenadier, Coldstream, and Scots). This period was filled with fits and starts (some regiments were stood up, disbanded, stood up again, etc) with the primary growth spurts occurring during the 7 Years War and the Napoleonic Wars. A final growth period occurred in 1862 when the East India Company regiments were absorbed.
3. By the middle of Victorian Britain, the pre-Cardwell/Childers British Infantry system consisted of the Guards regiments and 141 Battalions belonging to to 110 Infantry Regiments of Foot; the 1st-25th each had 2 Battalions, while the 26th-109th had 1 each except the 60th (4) and the 79th (1). The Rifle Brigade had 4 battalions. Cardwell/Childers in 1881 - which can be considered the "first shock" to the 250 year old system - moved the focus from "numbered" identity" to a "named" identity. As well, all battalions above the 25th were paired (except for the 60th, 79th and Rifle Bde). Cardwell/Childers meant the Regimental System moved from 110 Line Regiments to 69 plus the 3 Regiments of Guards (this was purely an organizational change - the number of battalions remained constant).
4. There were obviously big expansions and contractions through the World Wars, but the Regimental System remained largely untouched (Regiments just grew in battalions - the Northumberland Fusiliers had 51 battalions during the First World War). By the end of the Second World War, all the excess Battalions of most regiments were disbanded (along with almost all Irish Regiments), leaving 64 single battalion Regiments of the Line, the five Guards Regiments of 8 battalions, the four Gurkha Regiments of 8 battalions and the Parachute Regiment of 3 battalions for an Infantry Corps of 74 Regiments of 83 battalions. The "Regimental Army" was still very similar to that of the Cardwell/Childers Army. With the British Empire dying a slow death after the Second World War, the Regimental System went through 4 additional periods of "shock":
4.a. The second shock was during the post India/Suez phase from 1957-1962. By the end of it, 16 mergers had occurred dropping the number of line Regiments to 49. The Guards, Gurkhas and Paras remained the same for an Infantry Corps of 59 Regiments of 68 battalions.
4.b. The third shock was during the shift from Empire to NATO from 1962-1970. The big change here was the move towards "Big Regiments"; the Line Regiments dropped only 10 battalions but, through mergers, saw the number of Regiments drop to 28. With 3 Gurkha battalions also folded up, the Infantry Corps consisted of 38 Regiments of 55 battalions.
4.c. The fourth shock was the post Cold War "Options for Change" from 1991-1994. Due to mergers and amalgamations, the Line Regiments dropped to 25 Regiments of 30 battalions. Three Regiments of Gurkhas disappeared and a single Gurkha Regiment of 2 battalions remained. The Guards Regiments were untouched, but 3 battalions were axed for an Infantry Corps of 32 Regiments of 40 Battalions.
4.d. The fifth shock stemmed from the 2004 White Paper. This made another significant "Big Regiments" move and by 2007, the Line Regiments only lost 3 battalions but had, through mergers, dropped to 10 Regiments. The Guards, Gurkhas and Paras were left alone (although a Para bn was cut to the SOF) for an Infantry Corps of 17 Regiments of 37 battalions.
So, to sum up, the Regimental System in Britain grew with the growth of the Empire to 110 Regiments (plus Guards). The first shock of Cardwell/Childers was significant, but it created the Regimental System we are most familiar with (i.e. it created the "Royal Buckshot Fusiliers"). The third and fifth shocks were also significant as they pushed for big, multi-battalion regiments.
This Army 2020 plan represents a sixth shock, or, more likely, the final part to the fifth shock started in 2004, but it seems to be quite small to the Regimental System. It will see the loss of 5 battalions, but no actual Regiments. However, it will leave a couple single battalion regiments which, historically, have been the target for further amalgamation. At this point, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the Royal Welsh Regiment may be living on borrowed time (along with some of the 2 battalion Regiments).
The so what of this? The Guards Regiments are protected, with the Grenadier, Coldstream and Scots Guards having 300+ years of unbroken, unmerged service (and the Welsh and Irish Guards having 100+ years). These will likely be the last Regiments to go.
As well, the Regimental System has never, since 1881, been a stable and monolithic institution - it has been in a constant state of flux. Even before 1881 it was constantly changing (although constantly growing instead of constantly shrinking). Any claims for "centuries old Regiments" is technically incorrect - the last 2 "pure" Regiments with single, non-amalgamated lineages were folded up in 2007. Today, the current British Regiments hold the lineage of numerous numbered Regiments from the hey-day of the Empire; the 5 battalions of the The Rifles have 21 antecedent Regiments, with the 1st Battalion The Rifles having lineage to 9 Regiments (the 11th, 28th, 39th, 49th, 54th, 61st, 62nd, 66th, and 99th Regiments of Foot). Historic regiments that have been folded up in the past were actually not that old - the Royal Green Jackets existed from 1958 to 2007.
Finally, the Regimental System through "Growth" (200 years) and "Shocks" (150 years) has evolved to the changing requirements of Army. There is a lot of gnashing of teeth as silverware is transferred from one mess to another, but the Army goes on, new traditions are made and new battle honours won, and the world carries on. We should never let Regimental mafias drive organizational agendas as their claims to operational relevance or the health of the Army are empty and not historically supported.
The book also covers the cavalry, which although a little more convoluted due to naming conventions (Dragoons, Hussars, Guards, Lancers, etc) has the same themes. Of note, the cavalry have attempted to keep their numbered regimental affiliation until the current day; with the merging of the 9th/12th Royal Lancers with the Queen's Royal Lancers, the 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards will be the last Regiment in the British Army to hold its original numbered designation.
Canada's system, with its own unique quirks and features, would be useful.
exspy
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 230
Nice post. Honestly, I could talk British Army all day.
It's funny how those regiments and titles created in 1881 have caused so much dissension during the era of the post Second World War reductions. The British system was perfect for what it was created for: Maintaining Imperial forces in an early industrial age society. What it wasn't meant to do was adapt to whatever the future might bring. This is what the last 67 years have shown as the Army, and the infantry in particular, have had to reduce. Really, no matter how the reductions would have been undertaken, it was always going to be a painful and messy process.
I don't think the problems are anywhere near as bad in the British cavalry, read Armour, regiments. Armour people are used to intra-regimental transfers more so than the infantry. There being fewer units with the majority based in Germany. It's more of a 'black hat' mafia than a 9th/12th Lancers mafia, if you get my drift. The armoured soldier is more corps-oriented than unit dependent.
It's funny because one reads posts from American soldiers on other forums that lament the lack of an American infantry regimental system in their Army. Maybe they're lucky they don't.
I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. Useful to the British? How so? I don't see our system being any more adaptable to reduction than the British. Remember 1968-1970? The last period of large scale Canadian infantry reduction? What about each time the militia was reorganized downwards and regiments were chopped? I'm not sure we have anything useful for them, but I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.
What about Australia? An infantry corps with one regular regiment. Whether it's three battalions or nine battalions, the regiment doesn't change. No angry letters to the editor of the local press. Maybe that is the one, true answer to the problem.
Cheers,
Dan.
It's funny how those regiments and titles created in 1881 have caused so much dissension during the era of the post Second World War reductions. The British system was perfect for what it was created for: Maintaining Imperial forces in an early industrial age society. What it wasn't meant to do was adapt to whatever the future might bring. This is what the last 67 years have shown as the Army, and the infantry in particular, have had to reduce. Really, no matter how the reductions would have been undertaken, it was always going to be a painful and messy process.
I don't think the problems are anywhere near as bad in the British cavalry, read Armour, regiments. Armour people are used to intra-regimental transfers more so than the infantry. There being fewer units with the majority based in Germany. It's more of a 'black hat' mafia than a 9th/12th Lancers mafia, if you get my drift. The armoured soldier is more corps-oriented than unit dependent.
It's funny because one reads posts from American soldiers on other forums that lament the lack of an American infantry regimental system in their Army. Maybe they're lucky they don't.
I'm not sure what you mean with this quote. Useful to the British? How so? I don't see our system being any more adaptable to reduction than the British. Remember 1968-1970? The last period of large scale Canadian infantry reduction? What about each time the militia was reorganized downwards and regiments were chopped? I'm not sure we have anything useful for them, but I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong.
What about Australia? An infantry corps with one regular regiment. Whether it's three battalions or nine battalions, the regiment doesn't change. No angry letters to the editor of the local press. Maybe that is the one, true answer to the problem.
Cheers,
Dan.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,350
- Points
- 1,010
Really interesting stuff and in the near future, I plan to get my mitts on that book.
Does Canada have what it takes to put the requirements of the nation first and protecting regimental tradition and history second?
There are also interesting hybrids (Look up the London Regiment for example)
At the end of the day, your regiment is there to serve the needs of the nation and if the nation needs your regiment to amalgamate, disband, expand or reduce to nil strength, then so be it.
Does Canada have what it takes to put the requirements of the nation first and protecting regimental tradition and history second?
There are also interesting hybrids (Look up the London Regiment for example)
At the end of the day, your regiment is there to serve the needs of the nation and if the nation needs your regiment to amalgamate, disband, expand or reduce to nil strength, then so be it.
There is a book that attempted to lay out the derivation of Canadian corps and regiments titled The Concise Lineage of The Canadian Army 1855 - Date by Charles H Stewart. I have a copy of the second edition which was publshed in 1982, but I am not aware of any more recent editions. The point to remember is that there was considerable flux in the Canadian regimental system, particularly in the militia. The 1936 reorganization was probably the major one, but it has been an ongoing process and no doubt will continue.
Edit to add: The details of the 1936 reorganization can be found in Historical Section (G.S.) Report No. 64 dated 20 Aug 53 on the DHH website. For example in Military District 1 in Western Ontario before the reorganization there were two cavalry regiments, five field batteries, 13 infantry and one machine gun battalion. After the dust cleared the district had one cavlary regiment, 12 field batteries, six infantry, three machine gun and one tank battalion.
Edit to add: The details of the 1936 reorganization can be found in Historical Section (G.S.) Report No. 64 dated 20 Aug 53 on the DHH website. For example in Military District 1 in Western Ontario before the reorganization there were two cavalry regiments, five field batteries, 13 infantry and one machine gun battalion. After the dust cleared the district had one cavlary regiment, 12 field batteries, six infantry, three machine gun and one tank battalion.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,220
- Points
- 1,160
ArmyRick said:
We've done far better than the British have. We've had pretty much the same regiments since the 70s, and the army has - to my knowledge - met all its commitments.
In the same period, the British have downsized and blended and created a host of 'vulgar fractions', almost at whim, which smacks of lousy planning and leadership IMHO.
Similar threads
